Yuku free message boards

My Recent Posts · ( 7-Apr-2008

You've got 11 SSNs

I'd prefer 2 LPH and reduce the cruisers to 4; I'd expect them to be part of the carrier/amphibious groups and not independent operators.

My Recent Posts · ( 7-Apr-2008

Something which brings the need for a balanced fleet to the public's attention - possibly something which stops them from being able to just wander down to the shops and pick something off the shelf when they want it.

However, it cannot be so serious as to screw up the economy and cant emphasise only one area e.g. mine warfare in SLOC's

My Recent Posts · ( 8-Apr-2008

ViribusUnitis wrote:

I'd prefer 2 LPH and reduce the cruisers to 4; I'd expect them to be part of the carrier/amphibious groups and not independent operators.

Disagree with you on that. My 'wishlist' is already down to 20 escorts (8 T45, 6 C1, 6 C2). I'd not be happy with the deletion of a further two units to augment an already pretty strong amphibious force, nor add a fourth flattop. A 40,000t LPH could bring a significant airborne punch alone, I'm not sure if we'd need two or if we could even fill two. Of the amphibious assets, I say we could do well with a fifth Bay LSL if we really needed.

The reasoning for my wishlist is outlined below....

The CVFs (whether CTOL or STOVL) form the cornerstone of the British military policy as outlined in SDR98 and Delivering Security In A Changing World 2004. These require escorts, and it is unfeasible to operate 30 such vessels on the current shoestring budget. During peacetime, these assets are (mis)used in roles they are not designed for due to lack of appropriate assets, e.g. destroyers in the C'bean or Cornwall in the Gulf. APT(N) could be satisfied by a long-ranged corvette with smaller-calibre gun and a Lynx than a ASW Type 23 sporting Harpoon and SeaWolf. Similarly, in hindsight, (and I don't want to open up this can of worms) the patrol of Shatt-al-Arab could have been met by a command and control vessel (at stand-off range) with smaller craft such as CB90s to search the commercial ships. So I hope that shows the necessity for a tiered Navy, than simply relying on one weight-class of escorts to conduct all duties.

The nature of this tiered approach is taken from the Marine Nationale which operate a core of 20 high-end warships, supplemented by light frigates and avisos. Furthermore, they fully employ forward basing at Reunion and other overseas departments. In designing the tiered RN, we need to calculate how many high-end escorts are necessary based on likely operations; Delivering Security In A Changing World suggested that the UK would bring specialist units to 'plug and play' within a broader coalition. This suits the Type 45 fine as a highly-capable AAW specialist but is limited as we may end up building 8, or worse, 6. As the Type 23 units get older we'll need to start thinking about replacements but with budgetary constraints, fewer hulls are likely. So the logical course of action is to design a similar ASW specialist which utilizes UUVs and other gadgets. So we have 8 Type 45s and maybe 6(?) ASW C1 units. How does the RN prosecute a high-intensity short-duration conflict similar to the Falklands? It requires ships in sufficient amounts to be on station, on route, and in refit. It then seems opportune to have a third class of high-end general purpose combatants, the C2s.

The idea of the C2s is that they would work under the umbrella of specialist ASW and AAW assets, and so not need to have such capable sensor fits. Predominantly, the function should be to act as another layer of air-defence, ship-defence as well as act as 'battlewinners' by contributing over-the-horizon land attack during hot wars, hence Aster 15s, Harpoon and 5" artillery. The other 95% of the time when the C2 is not throwing TLAMs around, they would be better suited as multi-purpose cruisers tasked with humanitarian/disaster relief (large water filtration capacity, bladder tanks for storage, mexifloats, capable of deploying helicopters as well as LCVPs or CB90s etc.

So, in conclusion we have our fleet centred around the CVFs with high-end escorts for 'hot' wars, as well as cheaper, lighter C3s to dart around doing the peacetime bread n' butter work of the RN as well as showing the flag to other countries (as the MN often does with their futuristic-looking LaFayettes). Good for Britain Plc. In addition, through careful design of the General Purpose C2, we obtain a large vessel with multirole capability, to straddle the tasks of peacetime humanitarian-type ops (e.g. Op Palliser?) as well as those of providing another sea-control/area-denial asset during hot wars (e.g. Falklands).

My Recent Posts · ( 8-Apr-2008

TLAM is currently utilised from the SSN fleet. I'm not sure we need it on a surface vessel.
Harpoon is gaining a land attack function.
Now if we have Storm Shadow used on the F35-B's off a CVF then this should cover that side of things.
In fact there does'nt seem much need for TLAM aboard a C2 90% of the time, and most likely it can be covered by Harpoon developments.

CAAM is frankly such a good idea....well I did think that one up virtualy.

I'm not sure we need a seperate 40Kton CVH, a third CVF would permit one to function as a CVH and one as a CVS, while retaining the ability to switch roles if need be (even if only the RAF can put F35-Bs on its deck).

Now as for ASW sepcialists I'd say the numbers are preferential for 8, as per the supposed plan for the Type45's. Though I'd rather have 9 of each, assuring availability of 3 at any one time, and 6 during wartime.

Forward basing does make some sense, and we can see its partialy happened in the Gulf by basing with the USN at Bahrain.
We could extend this with basing in Singapore, the Falklands (covering the South Atlantic and Antarctic), somewhere in the Caribean and somewhere off Africa.

My Recent Posts · ( 8-Apr-2008

Why not use the T45 hull & propulsion for all the cruisers?

A third CVF would be a very expensive way to get an LPH. We're going to struggle to provide full air groups for two, let alone three. I prefer the idea of a much cheaper LPH, with a secondary STOVL role - and make sure it's never in refit at the same time as a CVF. Two would be better, because one of any class always leaves a gap when in dock, but not at the expense of other ships.

Why Sylver A70 and Aster 15? Was Scalp Naval missed off the list of weapons for these ships.

In terms of the mix of escorts, I agree entirely with the principle of a relatively large number of modest (in size, price, & crewing needs) ships to do all the dogsbody stuff. In peacetime, save wear on the expensive ships, let them serve (with weapons & electronics upgrades) for longer, save on operating costs, & fill gaps in wartime.

My Recent Posts · ( 8-Apr-2008

Haha, resurrecting fantasy fleets again eh, well here we go:

2x STOVL CVF - Prince of Wales, Queen Elizabeth
Specifications: 289m; 65,000t full load (75,000t design limit); 180x36x10m hangar deck; 2x deck-edge a/c lifts (carrying 2x F35); 29kt fast; C4ISTAR capability
Airwing: 36x F35B (18 in peacetime); 4x Merlin ASAC; 2x HM1 Merlin, 3x HC3 Merlin (RAF)

2x LPH(F) - Hermes, Hoplite
Specifications: 24,000t; 2x deck-edge a/c lifts; 25kt fast;
Airwing: 4x MH-47G Chinook (RAF), 4x HC3 Merlin (RAF), FireScout UAV?, 4x WAH-64 Apache (AAC) (Suggested airwing?)

8x C1 AS/SuW Cruiser - Churchill, Centaur, Conqueror, Cerberus, Challenger, Charger, Chippy, Chutzpah
Specifications: 172m trimaran?; 12,000t (full); 29kt fast; 1x 5" gun; 16x Harpoon; 2x Phalanx CIWS; Type 2087 Towed Array Sonar; huge USV capability; 8x Cray Marine 324mm (2 quad) torpedo tubes; 32x Sylver A70 with Aster 15; RAM; large hangar
Airwing: 2x HM1 Merlin; FireScoutUAV?

8x Type 45 AAW Cruiser - Daring, Dauntless, Diamond, Duncan, Defender, Dragon, Dreadnought, Devastation
Specifications: As built but add/replace with the following… 1x 5" gun; 8x Harpoon; 2x Phalanx CIWS; 4x Cray Marine 324mm (2 twin) torpedo tubes; 48-cell Sylver A50 with Aster 15/30; 16-cell Sylver A70 with Aster45
Airwing: 1x HM1 Merlin

8x C2 General Purpose Cruiser - Revenge, Rodney, Ramillies, Repulse, Renown, Royal Sovereign
Specifications: 172m trimaran?; 12,000t; 29kt fast; 1x 5" gun; 8x Harpoon; 64x Sylver A70 with Aster 15 and TLAM; 2x Phalanx CIWS; 8x Cray Marine 324mm (2 quad) torpedo tubes;
Mission 'Modules': 2x CB90s; 1x HC3 Merlin;

12x C3 Ocean-Capable Patrol Sloop - London, Derby, Manchester, Liverpool, Swansea, Belfast, Aberdeen, Nottingham, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Bristol,
Specifications: 110m length; 2,500t; 25kts; Thales Artemis IRST; Herakles S-Band MF; extensive USV kit for minesweeping and oceanographic survey; modularised sensor and weapons systems; basic fit - 1x OTO 76mm, 2x 30mm cannon; 16x Sylver A50 with CAAM; FFBNW Aster 15 and Harpoon

12x Astute-class SSN - Astute, Artful, Ambush, Audacious, Anson, Achilles, Invincible, Illustrious, Indomitable, Indefatigable, Icarus
Specifications: As built.

2x Albion-class LPD - Albion, Bulwark
Specifications: As built. Maybe a hanger?

4x Bay-class ALSL - Largs Bay, Lyme Bay, Mounts Bay, Cardigan Bay
Specifications: As built.

4x Vanguard-class SSBNs - Vanguard, Vengeance, Victorious, Vigilant
Specifications: Enough said.

My Recent Posts · ( 8-Apr-2008

Wish list?. A fleet we can afford to deploy and not have to gap foreign policy defined patrol slots would be where we need to be i'd say.

Composition needs to be something like:

2 CVF's - surge airgroup 3 sqdn's F35B. Merlin ASaC/HM1. ISTAR/AEW UAVs Boeing A-160/Searchwater or similar.

Amphibs as is.

8 T45's principle Fleet AAW.

8 C1 principle Fleet ASW. Stretched DDH variant of T45 for maximum supportable airgroup of 3 Merlin HM1. Mk8 mod 1 (space/margin left for BAE155), 32 cell Sylver A70 VLS for CAAM/Scalp-N. 2087 arrays transplanted from T23's. Artisan MRR. Netcentric master node capability for use in ASWCS and ISTAR rotary UAV LACM targetting roles. Machinery commonality with T45 for maximum support savings.

16 (initially) Common Hull Patrol ships. 4000ton dsplcmnt monohull, CODAD for 25knts, standard Artisan MRR fit plus EO's. Aviation facilities for permanent FLynx embarkation - flight deck able to operate choppers up to Merlin sized.

-Batch 1 Austere Patrol Ship variant "C3" with mission deck/RHIB ramp astern plus UUV handling gear, refurb Mk8 mod 1 forward, refurb Phalanx 1B atop hangar plus light guns.

-Batch 2 Patrol Combattant variant "C2" Mk8 (space/margin left for BAE155), CAAM 16 cell Sylver A35/43, GWS60. CESM/ELINT/EW fit. Expanded aviation dept with provision for rotary UAV deployment.

Effectively, with ASuW the preserve of the SSN's as it ever has been, that leaves the primary warfighting taskings well covered.

Importantly it creates a surface escort/patrol fleet based, essentially, on just two classes of vessel with high systems commonality within the two classes. This high systems commonality should provide significant savings in training and support, whilst providing a significant patrol capability and cutting edge combat power with 16 first line combattants, 8 second-line combattants and an additional 8 patrol vessels capable of keeping up with the Amphib group and providing fleet MCMW and even NGFS, at a pinch, to te deployed task group.

My Recent Posts · ( 8-Apr-2008

^^ used to be remf: Yer b**tard, you just stole my fleet! Get yer own names!

Zen9:
TLAM is currently utilised from the SSN fleet. I'm not sure we need it on a surface vessel.

Yes, I think I agree with you here. I've not usually been a proponent of placing TLAM on surface escorts, preferring the SSNs to undertake that task. TLAM capacity is questionable with just 7 SSNs, but perhaps workable with the 10 that I would like to see the RN get.

However, if C2 is to be a general-purpose cruiser, perhaps building them with capacity for TLAM (in upto 48 or even 64 VLS) might be worth it? How many are we expecting to use in a major land attack action (e.g. something like the first few days of the Iraqi invasion)? I'd say 40? Since SSNs have a capacity less than this (AFAIK), and some of the munitions will be torpedoes anyway, we may need 3 SSNs in theatre to deliver those TLAMs.

Zen9:
Harpoon is gaining a land attack function.

Misuse of resources to use them in that function IMO. 8 single-use ASMs are better saved for surface actions when an SSN may not be available to enforce sea control.

Zen9:
CAAM is frankly such a good idea....well I did think that one up virtualy.

Absolutely. I remember you throwing that idea around on this forum some years ago. Having them quad-packed like ESSM would be great. Alternatively, fitting CAAM to some kind of rolling-airframe (like SeaRAM) may prove useful in standardising point-defence across the fleet, including RFA vessels.

However, with the C1s and C2s (the 'heavy' escorts) would CAAM suffice, or could we splash out and fit the more capable Aster? IMO, the 'heavy' escorts, given that they'll be few in number (in this scenario), would be better served by operating Aster, leaving the C3s installed with CAAM for minimal point-defence.

Zen9:
I'm not sure we need a seperate 40Kton CVH, a third CVF would permit one to function as a CVH and one as a CVS, while retaining the ability to switch roles if need be (even if only the RAF can put F35-Bs on its deck).

Possibly, but I assume without any of the C4ISR fit that the CVFs will have? Could be expensive. Then again, if you're just thinking of a box with a couple of lifts then... how much was that contract for 80,000t of steel worth??

Zen9:
Now as for ASW sepcialists I'd say the numbers are preferential for 8, as per the supposed plan for the Type45's. Though I'd rather have 9 of each, assuring availability of 3 at any one time, and 6 during wartime.

Agreed, but I think that is unaffordable. 27 high-end escorts with 12 C3s is never going to happen. We'll be lucky if our high-end escorts (Type 22s and 23s) don't fall into the teens.

Zen9:
Forward basing does make some sense, and we can see its partialy happened in the Gulf by basing with the USN at Bahrain.
We could extend this with basing in Singapore, the Falklands (covering the South Atlantic and Antarctic), somewhere in the Caribean and somewhere off Africa.

I suggest NS Mayport in Florida and the French base at Reunion in the Indian Ocean.

Bledlow:
Why not use the T45 hull & propulsion for all the cruisers?

I foresee C1 having a large rotary capability, acting as a mothership for a sensor net of sonar-dipping Merlins. Similarly, I envisage C2 also having a large rotary capability to fulfil its peacetime operations as a kind of humanitarian relief mothership and in wartime augmenting the C1s if necessary. I'm not sure several large helicopters could fit into the beam of a monohull, even one as large as the Type 45.

Bledlow:
Why Sylver A70 and Aster 15?

In the event that C2 has to carry TLAM. For the Type 45s, the extra 16 VLS should be the deep-strike length (A70) to accommodate any possible ABM version of the Aster missile with it's associated booster.

Bledlow:
Was Scalp Naval missed off the list of weapons for these ships.

Well, the RN is buying TacTom for sublaunch anyway... makes sense to stick to one type of missile, even if it's to be launched vertically?

My Recent Posts · ( 8-Apr-2008

When thinking of quantities and capabilities, remmeber this is a WISH list.....

My Recent Posts · ( 8-Apr-2008

my apologies Shaun.

Author	Comment
ViribusUnitis		#71	[-]
Posts: 458 ( 7-Apr-2008 20:16:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	You've got 11 SSNs I'd prefer 2 LPH and reduce the cruisers to 4; I'd expect them to be part of the carrier/amphibious groups and not independent operators.
PMN1		#72	[-]
Posts: 3425 ( 7-Apr-2008 23:20:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Something which brings the need for a balanced fleet to the public's attention - possibly something which stops them from being able to just wander down to the shops and pick something off the shelf when they want it. However, it cannot be so serious as to screw up the economy and cant emphasise only one area e.g. mine warfare in SLOC's
shaun		#73	[-]
Posts: 156 ( 8-Apr-2008 00:48:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	ViribusUnitis wrote: I'd prefer 2 LPH and reduce the cruisers to 4; I'd expect them to be part of the carrier/amphibious groups and not independent operators. Disagree with you on that. My 'wishlist' is already down to 20 escorts (8 T45, 6 C1, 6 C2). I'd not be happy with the deletion of a further two units to augment an already pretty strong amphibious force, nor add a fourth flattop. A 40,000t LPH could bring a significant airborne punch alone, I'm not sure if we'd need two or if we could even fill two. Of the amphibious assets, I say we could do well with a fifth Bay LSL if we really needed. The reasoning for my wishlist is outlined below.... The CVFs (whether CTOL or STOVL) form the cornerstone of the British military policy as outlined in SDR98 and Delivering Security In A Changing World 2004. These require escorts, and it is unfeasible to operate 30 such vessels on the current shoestring budget. During peacetime, these assets are (mis)used in roles they are not designed for due to lack of appropriate assets, e.g. destroyers in the C'bean or Cornwall in the Gulf. APT(N) could be satisfied by a long-ranged corvette with smaller-calibre gun and a Lynx than a ASW Type 23 sporting Harpoon and SeaWolf. Similarly, in hindsight, (and I don't want to open up this can of worms) the patrol of Shatt-al-Arab could have been met by a command and control vessel (at stand-off range) with smaller craft such as CB90s to search the commercial ships. So I hope that shows the necessity for a tiered Navy, than simply relying on one weight-class of escorts to conduct all duties. The nature of this tiered approach is taken from the Marine Nationale which operate a core of 20 high-end warships, supplemented by light frigates and avisos. Furthermore, they fully employ forward basing at Reunion and other overseas departments. In designing the tiered RN, we need to calculate how many high-end escorts are necessary based on likely operations; Delivering Security In A Changing World suggested that the UK would bring specialist units to 'plug and play' within a broader coalition. This suits the Type 45 fine as a highly-capable AAW specialist but is limited as we may end up building 8, or worse, 6. As the Type 23 units get older we'll need to start thinking about replacements but with budgetary constraints, fewer hulls are likely. So the logical course of action is to design a similar ASW specialist which utilizes UUVs and other gadgets. So we have 8 Type 45s and maybe 6(?) ASW C1 units. How does the RN prosecute a high-intensity short-duration conflict similar to the Falklands? It requires ships in sufficient amounts to be on station, on route, and in refit. It then seems opportune to have a third class of high-end general purpose combatants, the C2s. The idea of the C2s is that they would work under the umbrella of specialist ASW and AAW assets, and so not need to have such capable sensor fits. Predominantly, the function should be to act as another layer of air-defence, ship-defence as well as act as 'battlewinners' by contributing over-the-horizon land attack during hot wars, hence Aster 15s, Harpoon and 5" artillery. The other 95% of the time when the C2 is not throwing TLAMs around, they would be better suited as multi-purpose cruisers tasked with humanitarian/disaster relief (large water filtration capacity, bladder tanks for storage, mexifloats, capable of deploying helicopters as well as LCVPs or CB90s etc. So, in conclusion we have our fleet centred around the CVFs with high-end escorts for 'hot' wars, as well as cheaper, lighter C3s to dart around doing the peacetime bread n' butter work of the RN as well as showing the flag to other countries (as the MN often does with their futuristic-looking LaFayettes). Good for Britain Plc. In addition, through careful design of the General Purpose C2, we obtain a large vessel with multirole capability, to straddle the tasks of peacetime humanitarian-type ops (e.g. Op Palliser?) as well as those of providing another sea-control/area-denial asset during hot wars (e.g. Falklands).
Zen9		#74	[-]
Posts: 3411 ( 8-Apr-2008 10:38:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	TLAM is currently utilised from the SSN fleet. I'm not sure we need it on a surface vessel. Harpoon is gaining a land attack function. Now if we have Storm Shadow used on the F35-B's off a CVF then this should cover that side of things. In fact there does'nt seem much need for TLAM aboard a C2 90% of the time, and most likely it can be covered by Harpoon developments. CAAM is frankly such a good idea....well I did think that one up virtualy. I'm not sure we need a seperate 40Kton CVH, a third CVF would permit one to function as a CVH and one as a CVS, while retaining the ability to switch roles if need be (even if only the RAF can put F35-Bs on its deck). Now as for ASW sepcialists I'd say the numbers are preferential for 8, as per the supposed plan for the Type45's. Though I'd rather have 9 of each, assuring availability of 3 at any one time, and 6 during wartime. Forward basing does make some sense, and we can see its partialy happened in the Gulf by basing with the USN at Bahrain. We could extend this with basing in Singapore, the Falklands (covering the South Atlantic and Antarctic), somewhere in the Caribean and somewhere off Africa.
Bledlow		#75	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 41 ( 8-Apr-2008 11:21:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Why not use the T45 hull & propulsion for all the cruisers? A third CVF would be a very expensive way to get an LPH. We're going to struggle to provide full air groups for two, let alone three. I prefer the idea of a much cheaper LPH, with a secondary STOVL role - and make sure it's never in refit at the same time as a CVF. Two would be better, because one of any class always leaves a gap when in dock, but not at the expense of other ships. Why Sylver A70 and Aster 15? Was Scalp Naval missed off the list of weapons for these ships. In terms of the mix of escorts, I agree entirely with the principle of a relatively large number of modest (in size, price, & crewing needs) ships to do all the dogsbody stuff. In peacetime, save wear on the expensive ships, let them serve (with weapons & electronics upgrades) for longer, save on operating costs, & fill gaps in wartime.
used to be remf		#76	[-]
Posts: 456 ( 8-Apr-2008 13:01:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Haha, resurrecting fantasy fleets again eh, well here we go: 2x STOVL CVF - Prince of Wales, Queen Elizabeth Specifications: 289m; 65,000t full load (75,000t design limit); 180x36x10m hangar deck; 2x deck-edge a/c lifts (carrying 2x F35); 29kt fast; C4ISTAR capability Airwing: 36x F35B (18 in peacetime); 4x Merlin ASAC; 2x HM1 Merlin, 3x HC3 Merlin (RAF) 2x LPH(F) - Hermes, Hoplite Specifications: 24,000t; 2x deck-edge a/c lifts; 25kt fast; Airwing: 4x MH-47G Chinook (RAF), 4x HC3 Merlin (RAF), FireScout UAV?, 4x WAH-64 Apache (AAC) (Suggested airwing?) 8x C1 AS/SuW Cruiser - Churchill, Centaur, Conqueror, Cerberus, Challenger, Charger, Chippy, Chutzpah Specifications: 172m trimaran?; 12,000t (full); 29kt fast; 1x 5" gun; 16x Harpoon; 2x Phalanx CIWS; Type 2087 Towed Array Sonar; huge USV capability; 8x Cray Marine 324mm (2 quad) torpedo tubes; 32x Sylver A70 with Aster 15; RAM; large hangar Airwing: 2x HM1 Merlin; FireScoutUAV? 8x Type 45 AAW Cruiser - Daring, Dauntless, Diamond, Duncan, Defender, Dragon, Dreadnought, Devastation Specifications: As built but add/replace with the following… 1x 5" gun; 8x Harpoon; 2x Phalanx CIWS; 4x Cray Marine 324mm (2 twin) torpedo tubes; 48-cell Sylver A50 with Aster 15/30; 16-cell Sylver A70 with Aster45 Airwing: 1x HM1 Merlin 8x C2 General Purpose Cruiser - Revenge, Rodney, Ramillies, Repulse, Renown, Royal Sovereign Specifications: 172m trimaran?; 12,000t; 29kt fast; 1x 5" gun; 8x Harpoon; 64x Sylver A70 with Aster 15 and TLAM; 2x Phalanx CIWS; 8x Cray Marine 324mm (2 quad) torpedo tubes; Mission 'Modules': 2x CB90s; 1x HC3 Merlin; 12x C3 Ocean-Capable Patrol Sloop - London, Derby, Manchester, Liverpool, Swansea, Belfast, Aberdeen, Nottingham, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Bristol, Specifications: 110m length; 2,500t; 25kts; Thales Artemis IRST; Herakles S-Band MF; extensive USV kit for minesweeping and oceanographic survey; modularised sensor and weapons systems; basic fit - 1x OTO 76mm, 2x 30mm cannon; 16x Sylver A50 with CAAM; FFBNW Aster 15 and Harpoon 12x Astute-class SSN - Astute, Artful, Ambush, Audacious, Anson, Achilles, Invincible, Illustrious, Indomitable, Indefatigable, Icarus Specifications: As built. 2x Albion-class LPD - Albion, Bulwark Specifications: As built. Maybe a hanger? 4x Bay-class ALSL - Largs Bay, Lyme Bay, Mounts Bay, Cardigan Bay Specifications: As built. 4x Vanguard-class SSBNs - Vanguard, Vengeance, Victorious, Vigilant Specifications: Enough said.
Scouse		#77	[-]
Posts: 241 ( 8-Apr-2008 14:51:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Wish list?. A fleet we can afford to deploy and not have to gap foreign policy defined patrol slots would be where we need to be i'd say. Composition needs to be something like: 2 CVF's - surge airgroup 3 sqdn's F35B. Merlin ASaC/HM1. ISTAR/AEW UAVs Boeing A-160/Searchwater or similar. Amphibs as is. 8 T45's principle Fleet AAW. 8 C1 principle Fleet ASW. Stretched DDH variant of T45 for maximum supportable airgroup of 3 Merlin HM1. Mk8 mod 1 (space/margin left for BAE155), 32 cell Sylver A70 VLS for CAAM/Scalp-N. 2087 arrays transplanted from T23's. Artisan MRR. Netcentric master node capability for use in ASWCS and ISTAR rotary UAV LACM targetting roles. Machinery commonality with T45 for maximum support savings. 16 (initially) Common Hull Patrol ships. 4000ton dsplcmnt monohull, CODAD for 25knts, standard Artisan MRR fit plus EO's. Aviation facilities for permanent FLynx embarkation - flight deck able to operate choppers up to Merlin sized. -Batch 1 Austere Patrol Ship variant "C3" with mission deck/RHIB ramp astern plus UUV handling gear, refurb Mk8 mod 1 forward, refurb Phalanx 1B atop hangar plus light guns. -Batch 2 Patrol Combattant variant "C2" Mk8 (space/margin left for BAE155), CAAM 16 cell Sylver A35/43, GWS60. CESM/ELINT/EW fit. Expanded aviation dept with provision for rotary UAV deployment. Effectively, with ASuW the preserve of the SSN's as it ever has been, that leaves the primary warfighting taskings well covered. Importantly it creates a surface escort/patrol fleet based, essentially, on just two classes of vessel with high systems commonality within the two classes. This high systems commonality should provide significant savings in training and support, whilst providing a significant patrol capability and cutting edge combat power with 16 first line combattants, 8 second-line combattants and an additional 8 patrol vessels capable of keeping up with the Amphib group and providing fleet MCMW and even NGFS, at a pinch, to te deployed task group. Last Edited By: Scouse 8-Apr-2008 15:30:13. Edited 1 times.
shaun		#78	[-]
Posts: 157 ( 8-Apr-2008 14:52:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	^^ used to be remf: Yer btard, you just stole my fleet! Get yer own names! Zen9: TLAM is currently utilised from the SSN fleet. I'm not sure we need it on a surface vessel. Yes, I think I agree with you here. I've not usually been a proponent of placing TLAM on surface escorts, preferring the SSNs to undertake that task. TLAM capacity is questionable with just 7 SSNs, but perhaps workable with the 10 that I would like to see the RN get. However, if C2 is to be a general-purpose cruiser, perhaps building them with capacity for TLAM (in upto 48 or even 64 VLS) might be worth it? How many are we expecting to use in a major land attack action (e.g. something like the first few days of the Iraqi invasion)? I'd say 40? Since SSNs have a capacity less than this (AFAIK), and some of the munitions will be torpedoes anyway, we may need 3 SSNs in theatre to deliver those TLAMs. Zen9: Harpoon is gaining a land attack function. Misuse of resources to use them in that function IMO. 8 single-use ASMs are better saved for surface actions when an SSN may not be available to enforce sea control. Zen9: CAAM is frankly such a good idea....well I did think that one up virtualy. Absolutely. I remember you throwing that idea around on this forum some years ago. Having them quad-packed like ESSM would be great. Alternatively, fitting CAAM to some kind of rolling-airframe (like SeaRAM) may prove useful in standardising point-defence across the fleet, including RFA vessels. However, with the C1s and C2s (the 'heavy' escorts) would CAAM suffice, or could we splash out and fit the more capable Aster? IMO, the 'heavy' escorts, given that they'll be few in number (in this scenario), would be better served by operating Aster, leaving the C3s installed with CAAM for minimal point-defence. Zen9: I'm not sure we need a seperate 40Kton CVH, a third CVF would permit one to function as a CVH and one as a CVS, while retaining the ability to switch roles if need be (even if only the RAF can put F35-Bs on its deck). Possibly, but I assume without any of the C4ISR fit that the CVFs will have? Could be expensive. Then again, if you're just thinking of a box with a couple of lifts then... how much was that contract for 80,000t of steel worth?? Zen9: Now as for ASW sepcialists I'd say the numbers are preferential for 8, as per the supposed plan for the Type45's. Though I'd rather have 9 of each, assuring availability of 3 at any one time, and 6 during wartime. Agreed, but I think that is unaffordable. 27 high-end escorts with 12 C3s is never going to happen. We'll be lucky if our high-end escorts (Type 22s and 23s) don't fall into the teens. Zen9: Forward basing does make some sense, and we can see its partialy happened in the Gulf by basing with the USN at Bahrain. We could extend this with basing in Singapore, the Falklands (covering the South Atlantic and Antarctic), somewhere in the Caribean and somewhere off Africa. I suggest NS Mayport in Florida and the French base at Reunion in the Indian Ocean. Bledlow: Why not use the T45 hull & propulsion for all the cruisers? I foresee C1 having a large rotary capability, acting as a mothership for a sensor net of sonar-dipping Merlins. Similarly, I envisage C2 also having a large rotary capability to fulfil its peacetime operations as a kind of humanitarian relief mothership and in wartime augmenting the C1s if necessary. I'm not sure several large helicopters could fit into the beam of a monohull, even one as large as the Type 45. Bledlow: Why Sylver A70 and Aster 15? In the event that C2 has to carry TLAM. For the Type 45s, the extra 16 VLS should be the deep-strike length (A70) to accommodate any possible ABM version of the Aster missile with it's associated booster. Bledlow:** Was Scalp Naval missed off the list of weapons for these ships. Well, the RN is buying TacTom for sublaunch anyway... makes sense to stick to one type of missile, even if it's to be launched vertically?
PMN1		#79	[-]
Posts: 3426 ( 8-Apr-2008 15:54:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	When thinking of quantities and capabilities, remmeber this is a WISH list.....
used to be remf		#80	[-]
Posts: 457 ( 8-Apr-2008 16:43:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	my apologies Shaun.

Yuku free message boards

RN wish list

Quick Reply